Author Topic: Judging a pope  (Read 701 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline soulguard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1698
  • Reputation: +3/-9
  • Gender: Male
Judging a pope
« on: February 12, 2014, 05:34:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It has been said that no one may judge a pope because that is a thing proper to a superior, and he has no superior. But try this reasoning. God is his superior, and when a pope is in formal heresy he is judged by God who with divine law places the pope outside of the church, at the same time he ceases to be head of the church.

    Now priests and bishops may judge the pope and say he is an antipope BECAUSE God works through his people and especially his church. Where Cardinals fail to judge him the duty devolves to bishops, where bishops fail to judge it devolves to priests, where priests fail to judge it devolves to lay people to overthrow him who has usurped the chair of peter.
    When a bishop or priest exposes him as an antipope, the lay people should follow them, and there should be no more thinking he is a pope just because no one has called him out on his heresy. True Catholics know he is a heretic, and they know he is an antipope, and if they throw off the yoke of his rule then the church integrity remains complete and another pope may be elected.
    He had the chair but he lost it.
     :king: :light-saber:

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8525
    • Reputation: +1094/-833
    • Gender: Male
    Judging a pope
    « Reply #1 on: February 12, 2014, 11:46:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    It has been said that no one may judge a pope because that is a thing proper to a superior, and he has no superior. But try this reasoning. God is his superior, and when a pope is in formal heresy he is judged by God who with divine law places the pope outside of the church, at the same time he ceases to be head of the church.


    Correct.  When a man who claims to hold ecclesiastical office, including, and especially the papacy, teaches heresy and or engages in heretical acts, he shows himself to be judged already, by God.  Thence the man whose exterior words and actions we judge is not our judging the "pope" but our judging a man separated from the Catholic Church through heresy plain and simple.  A purported pope who becomes a heretic, loses his office (if he ever held it to begin with) by that very fact without any need for a declaration, though a declaration that declares what already has happened could be useful.  

    The sin, culpability is judged by God, this pertains to his salvation or damnation.

    The exterior act(s) is judged by faithful seeking to preserve their souls from error, this pertains to his ability to legitimately hold ecclesiastical office.  

    A private formal heretic (he does not teach heresy or engage in heretical acts and therefore does not destroy the visibility and unity of the Church) can be a valid Pope that goes to Hell.

    A public material heretic "Pope" cannot be Pope (because a Pope is prevented by the Holy Ghost from destroying the visibility and unity of the Church) but could go to Heaven if he embraces heresy through no fault of his own.  But one who claims ecclesiastical office, it would seem, does not have ignorance as an excuse.  All the V2 Popes until now have been born and raised in the true Church and were aware of what the Catholic Church has always taught.  Eventually, if God allows this to continue, we may have a "Pope" who really is ignorant of his heresy through no fault of his own, but if he teaches heresy, after being shown his error once or twice and pertinaciously holds to his heresy, he will not be a valid Pope according to Divine Law.  

    The "Popes" since 1958 have be formal public apostate heretics of the worst kind imaginable.  These, should they die in this state, appear destined to Hell barring some last minute miraculous conversion.  
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church


    Offline JohnAnthonyMarie

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1297
    • Reputation: +603/-63
    • Gender: Male
      • TraditionalCatholic.net
    Judging a pope
    « Reply #2 on: February 12, 2014, 02:48:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "The commission of certain very grave crimes has the effect of expelling the culpable religious ipso facto, that is, the religious is dismissed by the law itself. The terms of this canon are to be interpreted strictly, that is, all the conditions laid down must be actually present before such a grave penalty can be said to be incurred. A crime of this type would be A religious who has publicly apostized from the Catholic faith (c. 646, §1, 1°): Apostasy is defined in canon 1325, §2, as the complete abandonment of the Christian faith. The apostasy from the Catholic faith must be public, which means according to canon 2197, 1°, that either the fact is already known by a large number of people, or that the circumstances of the apostasy are such that one must prudently judge that it will easily become known."

    - Canon Law, A Text and Commentary, by Bouscaren and Ellis
    Omnes pro Christo

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9907
    • Reputation: +3897/-932
    • Gender: Male
    Judging a pope
    « Reply #3 on: February 12, 2014, 04:02:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I wonder about how different things would be today if the shepherds would have done what they were supposed to have done as is stated below.


    Quote from: Fr. Wathen

    If the person who incurs the censure be the pope himself, since
    there is no tribunal within the Church with the right to pass judgment
    against him, he cannot be removed from his office, even though he be
    under censure, and, according to the law, have no right to function as
    the head of the Church. We, his subjects, are not permitted to do
    anything about this. It is not within our right to declare his acts devoid
    of validity, due to his having been expelled from his office. Yes, the
    faithful may know well that he has committed a sin to which a censure
    is affixed by the Church, but this knowledge in no way qualifies
    them to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been
    elected. We should have to continue to obey him as the pope in all
    those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority,
    UNLESS he should command something which is sinful.

    However, even though the hierarchy cannot take legal action
    against an heretical pope, all of them together, or any one of them in
    particular, can condemn his teaching; they can accuse him before
    God's tribunal, warn him of his sins, and remind him of the divine
    wrath. Should this measure fail to produce any correction, they can
    denounce him before his subjects, the Catholic faithful, and warn
    them that they are not to listen to his teaching. Indeed, not only may
    the prelates of the Church do this, they have a most serious obligation
    to do it, an obligation which is as grave as the heresies are pernicious
    and scandalous. And if they fail to do this, they become a party to the
    pope's crimes, and will most certainly share in his punishment.

    Moreover, where the bishops default in their solemn duty to
    protect the Church and God's Little Sheep, the priests and the
    laypeople have not the right, but the duty, to raise their voices against
    an heretical pontiff. They not only raise their voices to God in prayer
    for the misguided man, but they also speak out to the bishops and the
    priests, and among themselves so as to warn their brothers and sisters
    in Christ that the plague of heresy has infected even their Holy Father,
    and has rendered him dangerous and unclean.


    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." - Fr. Hesse

    Offline soulguard

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1698
    • Reputation: +3/-9
    • Gender: Male
    Judging a pope
    « Reply #4 on: February 12, 2014, 04:55:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fr Wathen is wrong. He sets forth an illogical arrangement where a man no matter how apostate he was can remain head of the holy Catholic church. Why would a lay person who is in apostasy be out of the church but a pope apostate remain in the church? They are both equal before God, in fact, if one were to be expelled from the church earlier, it would be the pope apostate, because of the responsibilities incumbent on him.

    This is all my private opinion and my own reasoning, but I cannot accept the argument from Fr Wathen, which sets forward something ridiculous. The church is doomed if he is right.


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9907
    • Reputation: +3897/-932
    • Gender: Male
    Judging a pope
    « Reply #5 on: February 12, 2014, 05:11:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: soulguard
    Fr Wathen is wrong. He sets forth an illogical arrangement where a man no matter how apostate he was can remain head of the holy Catholic church. Why would a lay person who is in apostasy be out of the church but a pope apostate remain in the church? They are both equal before God, in fact, if one were to be expelled from the church earlier, it would be the pope apostate, because of the responsibilities incumbent on him.

    This is all my private opinion and my own reasoning, but I cannot accept the argument from Fr Wathen, which sets forward something ridiculous. The church is doomed if he is right.


    No, you are basing your opinion on your knowledge of the popes' sins and your emotions, OTOH, Fr. Wathen is stating the law of the Church.

    There really is no tribunal within the Church with the right to pass judgment against the pope - as you said in your OP. He cannot be removed from his office, even though he be under censure, and, according to the law, have no right to function as the head of the Church.

    There really is, according to the law, nothing anyone can do about it.

    IMO, there would be no crisis *IF* the shepherds did what they actually should have done, as Fr. Wathen said, instead of what they did.  

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." - Fr. Hesse

    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1931/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Judging a pope
    « Reply #6 on: February 12, 2014, 05:50:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: soulguard
    Fr Wathen is wrong. He sets forth an illogical arrangement where a man no matter how apostate he was can remain head of the holy Catholic church. Why would a lay person who is in apostasy be out of the church but a pope apostate remain in the church? They are both equal before God, in fact, if one were to be expelled from the church earlier, it would be the pope apostate, because of the responsibilities incumbent on him.

    This is all my private opinion and my own reasoning, but I cannot accept the argument from Fr Wathen, which sets forward something ridiculous. The church is doomed if he is right.


    The opinion of Fr. Wathen isn't based on Church teaching, and is certainly contrary to the very definition of heresy and opposed to the teaching of Bellarmine. Wathen was just wrong on this issue.
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16